Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

clark · 2004-01-13 10:23:31

Seeing as some of my predictions are bearing fruit, :laugh: I thought it might be fun to see if anyone else had some of their very own predictions for 2004.

Want a prediction on something? Ask, and maybe someone will answer.

What's the harm?

P.S.- just to cut you off at the pass, here are the winning lottery numbers:

6, 18, 43, 28, 32, 24... 12 is the extra super mega number whatever, if the lottery you play has this. At some time in the future, these numbers will be picked. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 12:04:21

Heheh

What do you think about Bush's election chances?

clark · 2004-01-13 12:12:29

Let me gaze into my crystal ball...

I see something, it's fuzzy, soft colors... warm even. Hmm, let me try to adjust the video. Ah! That's better. I am seeing a number. Not a big number, no. Not a small number either. Damn, it's still to fuzzy... I really hate these cheap foreign made crystal balls. That'll teach me to try and see the future in a crystal ball I got on Ebay from some gypsy in the desert of Algeria!

Okay, it's finally come through. Bush's election chances look to be 50-50.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 13:13:22

And your prediction as to who will be our next President?

clark · 2004-01-13 13:14:11

Clark.

Bill White · 2004-01-13 13:17:09

Clinton.

In 2008.

Bush won't be our next president; he will merely continue for 4 more years. Wes Clark wins NOW or else he vanishes. IMHO

But if Clark gets the nomination he might as well start screaming for MarsDirect instead of the Bush plan. Way cheaper and all those folks in Florida and Michoud stay employed building shuttle tanks for Ares launches and other shuttle derived launch systems.

= = =

Here it is in a nutshell:

Bush plan: Robots on the Moon by 2013. People soon thereafter. Mars? Someday. Tens of thousands of lay-offs in Florida and Michoud Louisiana.

Dem TBA plan: MarsDirect and dusty footprints by 2014 or 2018. Cancel the orbiter yet build Ares or another shuttle derived booster. Tens of thousands of workers stay employed.

Let the debate begin!

(This part 2 was added via edit key)

clark · 2004-01-13 13:38:53

Clinton will be the next VP.

clark · 2004-01-13 13:52:31

You said it Bill,

Let the debate begin!

Space policy, debated, in an election year.

Um, I told you so. :laugh:

Bill White · 2004-01-13 14:01:35

You said it Bill,
Let the debate begin!
Space policy, debated, in an election year.
Um, I told you so. :laugh:

The main talking points are already spelled out.

MarsDirect means saving jobs for Morton Thiokol and at the Kennedy Space Center and the USA gets to Mars cheaper and faster than with the expected Bush plan. The Democrat candidate doesn't have to mean it just say it loudly enough. And make visits to Titusville and Cocoa Beach food pantries as well as a certain parish in Louisiana.

= = =

What else can the Democrat say?

Keep the orbiter program? He'd get crucified supporting a do nothing unsafe platform - - the shuttle orbiter. Abandon humans in space? Yeah right, let President Bush have =ALL= the moral high ground. Maybe MarsDirect is the only place a space-savvy Democrat can park his policy in 2004.

Too bad President Bush didn't claim MarsDirect first, since he will most probably win. . . :;):

clark · 2004-01-13 14:10:28

A democratic canadite suggesting Mars Direct will be crucified by the Republican party. Especially given that none of the contendors have any real experience to point to demonstrating that their approach is better.

We go to Mars, it still means that we have to divest from ISS. We go to Mars, while maintaing the Shuttle fleet, we must raise additional funds beyond what Bush is asking for. It ain't going to happen. We go to Mars, we still need to cut all other non-human related space research.

We retire the Shuttle, we don't really have to upgrade them- that saves money. We build a capsule, instead of a winged thing, we save money (we have a better understanding of capsule design) by forgoing the OSP.

Karl Rove did well, if you ask me.

Bill White · 2004-01-13 14:35:01

A democratic canadite suggesting Mars Direct will be crucified by the Republican party. Especially given that none of the contendors have any real experience to point to demonstrating that their approach is better.
We go to Mars, it still means that we have to divest from ISS. We go to Mars, while maintaing the Shuttle fleet, we must raise additional funds beyond what Bush is asking for. It ain't going to happen. We go to Mars, we still need to cut all other non-human related space research.
We retire the Shuttle, we don't really have to upgrade them- that saves money. We build a capsule, instead of a winged thing, we save money (we have a better understanding of capsule design) by forgoing the OSP.
Karl Rove did well, if you ask me.

You are right, of course, as the Bush plan does paint the Democrat candidate into a nasty corner. As I see it, the Dems can say:

< 1 > "Yup, me too Mr. President"

< 2 > Abandon humans in space

< 3 > Maintain the status quo, although shuttle orbiter re-certification is a killer issue. . .

< 4 > Roll the dice and double the President's bet on space.

When its 4th and long, you throw the ball downfield, right? As far as getting creamed by the Republicans, would options 1 through 3 be much better?

< 2 > would play to the worst instincts of the Democrats IMHO and I bet that is what Rove hopes for in his fondest dreams.

That leaves < 1 > and < 4 > IMHO.

Caveat - - I am making this up as I go along and I am not a professional political strategist who probably should not be doing this at home. . .

Bill White · 2004-01-13 14:38:10

Joe Lieberman? He'd say: "Yup, Mr. President, me too."

clark · 2004-01-13 14:44:03

Number One makes the most sense. If they attack, they get portrayed as ankle bitters lacking vision. If they roll over, he gets credit, and it gets less air time.

They will attack the space plan in terms of overall policy plans for America, calling for a renewed approach to space, like whatever Bush announces, but will also call for domestic reforms to ensure that America can achieve all of it's bold visions for the future.

We will be sending humans into space, and now is not the time to cut corners. Cutting corners is what killed those Shuttle astronauts when Nixon, a Republican, started the Shuttle program.

Remember, leave no Earthling behind.

jadeheart · 2004-01-13 14:47:08

I will go out on a limb here and predict that, late at night next December 31st, 2004 will be supplanted by a "New Year." This New Year will be called "2005."

I wonder if William Bennett will bet me on THAT prediction?

The difference between a Democrat proposing a space plan (assuming this would ever happen, although Kennedy was a Dem) is that the evil tax-and-spend Democrats would provide tax revenue to support it.

It is my hope that the first mission to Mars will be one of colonization, it will happen yesterday, and that Karl Rove will be the first colonist sent on this mission.

clark · 2004-01-13 15:03:20

It is my hope that the first mission to Mars will be one of colonization, it will happen yesterday, and that Karl Rove will be the first colonist sent on this mission.

You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb

Bill White · 2004-01-13 15:10:32

Number One makes the most sense. If they attack, they get portrayed as ankle bitters lacking vision. If they roll over, he gets credit, and it gets less air time.
They will attack the space plan in terms of overall policy plans for America, calling for a renewed approach to space, like whatever Bush announces, but will also call for domestic reforms to ensure that America can achieve all of it's bold visions for the future.
We will be sending humans into space, and now is not the time to cut corners. Cutting corners is what killed those Shuttle astronauts when Nixon, a Republican, started the Shuttle program.
Remember, leave no Earthling behind.

clark! I am trying my darndest not to say "Yup me too"

Agreement is soooo boring. But you keep making it harder and harder to disagree.

You and I may disagree somewhat over the frailty/robustness of MarsDirect yet even that is merely which side of "sane" does the plan fall on. And even I would never assert more than perhaps "barely sane" coming from a 100% amateur perspective.

clark · 2004-01-13 15:19:16

Are you getting crazier, or am I just getting more sane? :laugh: Please don't answer that.

You and I may disagree somewhat over the frailty/robustness of MarsDirect yet even that is merely which side of "sane" does the plan fall on. And even I would never assert more than perhaps "barely sane" coming from a 100% amateur perspective.

In complete agreement! Zzzzzzzz... huh? [wipe drool from face]. Guess I'm going to have to take one of my 'let's get radical' pills.

Mars Direct=Barely sane, and totally crazy. But then, so was Apollo.

I think Mars Direct will be perfect when we're ready for it. And as much as we think we are, we're not. Unfortunetly we do need to go to the moon, just to learn more about working in space conditions (gravity not withstanding).

Mars Direct is kind of, 'learn as we go', which is fine, for robots. But for human missions? One need look at the reaction being expressed in the "One way Mission to Mars" thread to see how this might be a really bad idea.

I fully believe that we will use Mars Direct, or it's daughter, after the Moon. But the risk level is just unacceptable at this point.

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 16:02:19

I predict change will occur.

clark · 2004-01-13 16:05:09

I predict you will lose a bet.

Bill White · 2004-01-13 16:14:13

I predict you will lose a bet.

We need a date for Mars, right? There remains a good chance President Bush will seek "wiggle room" such as:

"These new research initiatives I am calling for well better tell us how soon going to Mars will be feasible. I can promise we will go just as soon as we are ready and I will rely on my good friend Sean Keefe to tell me when that is."

Is this case, who wins the bet?

clark · 2004-01-13 16:22:40

Wrong thread.

There remains a good chance President Bush will declare some type of time line for Mars as well.

"Mars in 20 years, or bust. Thank you America. Goodnight!"

Bill White · 2004-01-13 16:33:59

I predict you will lose a bet.

Wrong thread? Agreed.

But don't blame me, boss. Josh, can you clean this up?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 17:47:34

Hehe, it's on topic.

Adrian gets to decide, though.

edit: about the bet, not about this topic... heh.

Edited By Josh Cryer on 1074037771

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-13 17:49:10

BTW, funnily enough, I bought a lottery ticket for the first time in awhile about an hour ago (after clark made his prediction). I lost.

Spooky.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-13 17:54:24

Okay, I'll bite.

Having consulted with the dark spirits who are privy to such things, I predict the following:

1. We will see that a quick turnover of Iraq to local authorities is unwise.

2. Musharraf will lose the presidency of Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalists will gain access to that nation's nuclear weapons. It will be confirmed that Osama bin Laden has been hiding in Pakistan near the Afghan border.

3. North Korea, out of desperation, will step up its belligerence, preparing to test a nuclear bomb. At the last minute they will cancel the test out of fear of the consequences and concern that the test will fail. Kim Jong Il will continue wearing those stupid jumpsuits.

4. George W. Bush will be re-elected by a significant, though not landslide majority. Florida 2000 will be invoked with no point.

5. I will lose an election.

6. Neither Spirit nor Opportunity will find weapons of mass destruction

7. The "assault weapons ban," due to expire, will be renewed by a slim majority. With no point.

8. Terrorists will... No, better not put that one in print.

9. I will play Clark's lotto numbers. They will win the following week, when I don't play. There will be much cursing.

I'm sure the all knowing spirits will reveal more in time, but for now I'm out of chickens.

No chickens were harmed in the divining of these predictions.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-13 10:23:31

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#2 2004-01-13 12:04:21

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#3 2004-01-13 12:12:29

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#4 2004-01-13 13:13:22

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#5 2004-01-13 13:14:11

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#6 2004-01-13 13:17:09

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#7 2004-01-13 13:38:53

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#8 2004-01-13 13:52:31

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#9 2004-01-13 14:01:35

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#10 2004-01-13 14:10:28

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#11 2004-01-13 14:35:01

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#12 2004-01-13 14:38:10

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#13 2004-01-13 14:44:03

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#14 2004-01-13 14:47:08

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#15 2004-01-13 15:03:20

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#16 2004-01-13 15:10:32

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#17 2004-01-13 15:19:16

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#18 2004-01-13 16:02:19

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#19 2004-01-13 16:05:09

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#20 2004-01-13 16:14:13

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#21 2004-01-13 16:22:40

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#22 2004-01-13 16:33:59

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#23 2004-01-13 17:47:34

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#24 2004-01-13 17:49:10

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

#25 2004-01-13 17:54:24

Re: Predictions for 2004 - Got one?

Board footer